@ShallowBeThyGames The image is a point of light; it's the only picture of an exoplanet so far (that I'm aware of anyway), and it's a special case. The debris ring around Fomalhaut allowed us to find it. Also Pluto is really friggin' small. There's also tricks like gravitational lensing that we can use to see stuff farther away that we can't use on stuff that's closer.
@Finiras Not entirely. They assumed Pluto must have had a larger mass because of poor handling of one of the observations that was watching Neptune's orbit beforehand. The operator cleaned the gear box in the middle of the experiment period, and that altered the data that was obtained to a sufficient degree to account for the supposed deviation in Neptune's orbit that lead to the search for "Planet X" in the first place.
@AnnaLang17 If you look at the orbit heights it will become very clear that the order of disruption will have a hard time pushing them together. Recall that gravity wells attract on the order of distance squared, so two things being pushed together by a star implies that Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Saturn, on down will all be pulled toward the sun. If it's powerful enough to do that, then probably the sun and everything in between will come with.
Both the arrows in this video are pointed incorrectly, at two different background stars which obviously did not move between the two images. Pluto is actually above the arrowhead in both images. Google "Pluto Lowell Observatory" for the correct arrow indication.
@FatLingon A telescope's zoom is limited by interference fringes, that are correlated to it's diameter. The larger your mirror, the higher angular resolution you can get. This is what makes interferometry's interest: you get a virtual gigantic mirror by associating two mirrors. Now you made me wonder why better images have not been taken by ground-based interferometers, such as the VLT's....
@blackchaos23 Thx for the comment. It made me think, but I don't think it is the size of the galaxy but that there is light coming from it. Check out the video "The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Take." Pluto only reflects light from the sun & is so far away it might be like shining a light at a walnut 100 yards away & taking a picture of it (at night of).
@boyd1876 I can think of a two likely reasons. Either none of the missions (Voyager 1 and 2, Pioneer 10 and 11) flew near enough of Pluto to get good pictures (New Horizons has to be within six months of Pluto to get better data than Hubble) or all of them had their cameras powered off after leaving Neptune to conserve energy.
@slushomatic This technique of combining multiple images to get more detail is no "guessing" (and what use would guessing be to NASA?). With an understanding of mathematics it's proveable what you are doing. It is used in many fields of science from nano to universe scales. If there wouldn't be any useful outcome, it wouldn't be used. There are even programs you can use yourself, if you made e. g. a series of pictures of planets through a telescope to get Hi-res images.
@jim6584 In the video light/exposure didn't seem to be a problem. What I was wondering had more to do with resolution. Pluto in 10-20 pixels across is really crude. Not saying it isn't a scientific feat in it's own respect. But I wanted to hear some more info on what sets the optical zoom limitations on hubble(mirrors/lenses) and how that works.
@cfrancisco74 Well actually mate, Hubble's resolution cuts off around Saturn, since anywhere farther, is hard to see. And any images you might have seen of galaxies with a good resolution, you must note the fact that galaxies are exponentially larger than planets. And since Pluto (if you payed attention to the video) is around 0.01 the size of Earth, so just imagine how hard it would be to take capture an image with a good enough resolution.
Haha, before he mentioned it, It reminded me of those now ancient maps of mars, that's just telling of how much more powerful of telescopes we now need.
@lovingboarding If I remember correctly, Pluto has a tilted orbit. So while it looks like it could be in exactly the same place as Neptune, it really isn't the case. So as to addressing the question of when the crash will be, the answer is probably never.
make a video about optics, I want to know how hubble can take pictures of galaxies in the ultra deep field but not manage to take a decent picture of an object in our own solar system.
@tntbadman You haven't seen these 'cos you haven't bothered to look for them. We have very hi-res images of the Moon and Mars now due to probes like the Mars Global Surveyor, and they are stunning, showing features like sand dunes on Mars and holes in the crust of the Moon, as well as the Apollo landers on the surface.
Pluto actually isn't the biggest mass beyond Neptune. There biggest dwarf planet in our Solar System is actually Eris, which is roughly 3 times further away from the sun than Pluto. Crazy stuff. What's even more crazy is that within the Kuiper belt there are still more dwarf planets waiting to be discovered!
Oh man, we have to wait for five years,... I hate waiting,... I wantta see Pluto now!!!! All kidding aside, this has to some of the most interesting solar system exploration since the Voyager Probes. To be able to image some the most ancient objects of out solar system will indeed some interesting results.
@slushomatic My guess is that the explanation lies in the exposure time rather than the size, since the solid angle of the objects in the deep field images - as you say - are comparable to those of Pluto. For nearby objects the relative motion is bigger :-/
@puncheex For all I know, your first post was correct! But yeah, this seems more like it. Pluto couldn't nearly have been 1/5th the way out to Alpha Centauri now that I think of it. Anyway, thanks for the correction. That's still a really awesome way to put it!
@nhmllr725 Then we'd feel so stupid. "Oh, hi, guys. Sorry it took us so long to find you." "That's okay. I mean, at least you called our home a 'planet', right?" "Uh, yeah... about that..."
@superdau Haha, I know right! Although yes, when film photos are put for people like you and me to view, they certainly do convert into digital form, as every monitor uses digital screening with pixels. So yeah, those galaxies WOULD be shown with x pixels. Ahh, I'd really like to show you an example, its mind-blowing to be honest. I searched, however was unable to find the one I'm talking about.
@EntinludeX What is it with peoples obsession with Pluto being a planet? I grew up with Pluto as a planet, but i'm in no way upset that it was "demoted". Science is ever changing, and if they determine Pluto is nothing special in size, than i'm happy science has taught us this, and if we need to adjust the category of Pluto, and fine with that too. It has nothing to do with "elitist" status, it has to do with science.
@Metamorphosis20091 Our galaxy is 100,000 lightyears in diameter. Our solar system is ~25,000 lightyears from the center, and so ~75,000 lightyears inwards from the edge. We are near the inner rim of the Orion Spiral Arm.
@blackchaos23 and obviously you havent looked uo the dep field images. where they showed galaxies so far away that the size would be compairable to pluto. Also I find it funny they dont use film anymore because with film you do not have image degredation when inlarged. This only happens with digital photography.
@sidelingscroll aha,and I guess even if a disruption happens there's almost non probability that a collision course can occur given that it has never happened before.
You could have tried to explain surface temperatures of both Pluto and Mars so we would have a feel for seasonal change. Seasonal change? don't think so. What about axis shift? The guys who modeled this had to make assumptions about the direction the axis is pointing. Bad data in - bad results out?
Are those superimposed because both dots seem to be in both pictures, just varying in intensity.. if you put your finger on them then you see both on both!
So what does the Kuyper Belt look like from and edge view? That is, how thick is it? Pictures always show this 2-dimensional rendering, as if it were a very thin frisbee. Are their objects in the belt that are spherically located in 3 dimensions?
@rounder421 Dunno, perhaps due to the sheer size of the objects observed (galaxy vs. dwarf planet) or the exposure time possible? (limitations due to the relative motion of near objects to objects far away). Since the solid angle is rather small for far away objects however my bet is on the long time exposure option :-/ Not an astrophysicist; just guessing ;-)
@GamingLegit "Bow to science all you want,life is too perfect to be explained as probable" - If you understood the notion of perfect then you couldn't and wouldn't use it to describe life.Especially when that life contains so many imperfections. As for your argument as to what is or is not probable it reeks of the same lack of knowledge you used with perfection. We have a data set of one and even in that dataset we are constantly reminded of life in environments previously thought as improbable.
@slushomatic I believe you're talking about the digital panoramas? Yes, I have seen them. And there you go. And they DO use film photography, the films are used as negatives to make up the panoramas produced by NASA. If you'd like, I can try and find an example for you, but its somewhere on the Internet, haha.
@blackchaos23 Definately. Apparently if you checked out the vid I mentioned in my last commet you just point the Hubble anywhere in the sky for a while & you'll find several or several hundred.
@lordcheetah Says in this that they have imaged an exoplanet orbiting another star in 2004 using Hubble. /watch?v=aXKz4nxyPqw&feature=related So in comparison, Pluto is within spitting distance of hubble, yet the best imagery of Pluto is 10 pixels across. Seems odd to me.
@piranha031091 Well, last time I checked, our closest neighbouring galaxy ain't in the ultra deep field ;) But then again, I'd guess the resolution of those UDF galaxies(on an individual basis) arn't all that great either. What I'm wondering is more like "Why doesn't our telescopes have better zoom?" ... They probably already have kick ass zoom, but what are the things that sets the limits of zoom that prevents us from getting a high resolution image of pluto?
@FatLingon Stars make their own light. Planets reflect light. Give someone a bright flashlight have them walk 1 mile away on a cloudy night and have then point the flash light at you. You will see the lights. We see car head lights miles away. Have someone 100 yards away and use the same flash light to light up a golf ball on a string 20 feet away. You're not going to see the golf ball.
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video Part 2!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JpT5Voak6WA/mqdefault.jpg)
How can this one person possibly not like this video? There's just so much to be learned from it!
An excellent presentation! I look forward to the new details we'll find in just a few years, as out horizons continue expanding.
You gotta love how science is designed to correct itself. Amazing stuff.
Fascinating. Never knew all that about Pluto. Thanks for shedding some light on it.
Definitely love these videos! Keep up the AMAZING work! Can't wait for more of your videos to come out! More, more, more!!
This video was one of the best yet...
very very excellent talk. This actually kept me interested, more please!
Very cool stuff! Thank you for such great presentation. Can't wait for more...
the best explanation of pluto ever... great post !!!
Love these videos. Keep em coming!
Wonderful presentation and very enlightening!
Never would've thought that such low resolution images could tell so much
great video!!! loved it... please release more
I like that they show here the real pictures. Blurry dots and pixel can be more fascinating than CGI special effects :)
Excellent video. You're a great teacher.
i'm actually soo excited about this!!!
Loved this video!
I'm actually really exited for 2015 now!
@ShallowBeThyGames The image is a point of light; it's the only picture of an exoplanet so far (that I'm aware of anyway), and it's a special case. The debris ring around Fomalhaut allowed us to find it. Also Pluto is really friggin' small. There's also tricks like gravitational lensing that we can use to see stuff farther away that we can't use on stuff that's closer.
Thanks for posting!
This is how discovery/science channel videos SHOULD be instead of useless spinning graphics and zero effin content.! Best video on Pluto EVAR!!1
@Finiras Not entirely. They assumed Pluto must have had a larger mass because of poor handling of one of the observations that was watching Neptune's orbit beforehand. The operator cleaned the gear box in the middle of the experiment period, and that altered the data that was obtained to a sufficient degree to account for the supposed deviation in Neptune's orbit that lead to the search for "Planet X" in the first place.
Very nice presentation!
This is great to compare now that we've actually been!
5 years? I can totally wait for that. Pluto ftw!
Keep up the good work.
Great Video, thanks for the share
10:14 was FUCKING HILARIOUS! "Well that has to do with Plu - the or - shape of Pluto's orbit." Stuttering FTFUCKINGW!
Thanks for the great video
@AnnaLang17 If you look at the orbit heights it will become very clear that the order of disruption will have a hard time pushing them together. Recall that gravity wells attract on the order of distance squared, so two things being pushed together by a star implies that Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Saturn, on down will all be pulled toward the sun. If it's powerful enough to do that, then probably the sun and everything in between will come with.
that was good thanks, its nice to see and understand.
some great inforamtion here thanks
You have a very informative video!
Both the arrows in this video are pointed incorrectly, at two different background stars which obviously did not move between the two images.
Pluto is actually above the arrowhead in both images. Google "Pluto Lowell Observatory" for the correct arrow indication.
@puncheex That's a really awesome way to put it.
Great clip, very informative!
With cosmic greetings....
....Ralf Schoofs
very informative. thank you
fav. show on Best0fScience. Prof. Frank is amazing
well made. keep it up!
~Nout
@FatLingon A telescope's zoom is limited by interference fringes, that are correlated to it's diameter. The larger your mirror, the higher angular resolution you can get. This is what makes interferometry's interest: you get a virtual gigantic mirror by associating two mirrors.
Now you made me wonder why better images have not been taken by ground-based interferometers, such as the VLT's....
"We can tell that pluto has some dark spots and some light spots" - You have the giggles that come out of science sometimes....
@blackchaos23 Thx for the comment. It made me think, but I don't think it is the size of the galaxy but that there is light coming from it. Check out the video "The Hubble Deep Field: The Most Important Image Ever Take." Pluto only reflects light from the sun & is so far away it might be like shining a light at a walnut 100 yards away & taking a picture of it (at night of).
@boyd1876 I can think of a two likely reasons. Either none of the missions (Voyager 1 and 2, Pioneer 10 and 11) flew near enough of Pluto to get good pictures (New Horizons has to be within six months of Pluto to get better data than Hubble) or all of them had their cameras powered off after leaving Neptune to conserve energy.
What a great video.
@slushomatic
This technique of combining multiple images to get more detail is no "guessing" (and what use would guessing be to NASA?). With an understanding of mathematics it's proveable what you are doing. It is used in many fields of science from nano to universe scales. If there wouldn't be any useful outcome, it wouldn't be used. There are even programs you can use yourself, if you made e. g. a series of pictures of planets through a telescope to get Hi-res images.
I love this channel
@jim6584 In the video light/exposure didn't seem to be a problem. What I was wondering had more to do with resolution. Pluto in 10-20 pixels across is really crude. Not saying it isn't a scientific feat in it's own respect. But I wanted to hear some more info on what sets the optical zoom limitations on hubble(mirrors/lenses) and how that works.
@sidelingscroll Brilliant, thanks! The video looked a bit odd with the "overlap"
@cfrancisco74 Well actually mate, Hubble's resolution cuts off around Saturn, since anywhere farther, is hard to see. And any images you might have seen of galaxies with a good resolution, you must note the fact that galaxies are exponentially larger than planets. And since Pluto (if you payed attention to the video) is around 0.01 the size of Earth, so just imagine how hard it would be to take capture an image with a good enough resolution.
Haha, before he mentioned it, It reminded me of those now ancient maps of mars, that's just telling of how much more powerful of telescopes we now need.
@MercuryRis No, the tilt on pluto's orbit has it way above neptune's at the 'crossover'
2015.. we're going to reach Pluto that quickly.. or just get close enough to get a good shot.. whatever it is ... that's great news!
Cool stuff!! Thanks!
@lovingboarding If I remember correctly, Pluto has a tilted orbit. So while it looks like it could be in exactly the same place as Neptune, it really isn't the case. So as to addressing the question of when the crash will be, the answer is probably never.
make a video about optics, I want to know how hubble can take pictures of galaxies in the ultra deep field but not manage to take a decent picture of an object in our own solar system.
1:21 and 1:22 the 2 dots are in both pictures ...
@tntbadman You haven't seen these 'cos you haven't bothered to look for them. We have very hi-res images of the Moon and Mars now due to probes like the Mars Global Surveyor, and they are stunning, showing features like sand dunes on Mars and holes in the crust of the Moon, as well as the Apollo landers on the surface.
Still no thumb downs. I'm impressed.
Pluto actually isn't the biggest mass beyond Neptune. There biggest dwarf planet in our Solar System is actually Eris, which is roughly 3 times further away from the sun than Pluto. Crazy stuff. What's even more crazy is that within the Kuiper belt there are still more dwarf planets waiting to be discovered!
It's strange of me to think that elementary school lied to me what pluto looked like...
Thanks US education!
Oh man, we have to wait for five years,... I hate waiting,... I wantta see Pluto now!!!!
All kidding aside, this has to some of the most interesting solar system exploration since the Voyager Probes. To be able to image some the most ancient objects of out solar system will indeed some interesting results.
@bottlezone I consider a body that has a moon a Planet,doesn't matter if is big or small.
great video
@slushomatic My guess is that the explanation lies in the exposure time rather than the size, since the solid angle of the objects in the deep field images - as you say - are comparable to those of Pluto. For nearby objects the relative motion is bigger :-/
@puncheex For all I know, your first post was correct! But yeah, this seems more like it. Pluto couldn't nearly have been 1/5th the way out to Alpha Centauri now that I think of it. Anyway, thanks for the correction. That's still a really awesome way to put it!
I don't think were ever gonna walk on that one not with the temperatures that it is But wow I am looking forward to seeing those pictures in 2015
@nhmllr725
Then we'd feel so stupid.
"Oh, hi, guys. Sorry it took us so long to find you."
"That's okay. I mean, at least you called our home a 'planet', right?"
"Uh, yeah... about that..."
@superdau Haha, I know right! Although yes, when film photos are put for people like you and me to view, they certainly do convert into digital form, as every monitor uses digital screening with pixels. So yeah, those galaxies WOULD be shown with x pixels. Ahh, I'd really like to show you an example, its mind-blowing to be honest. I searched, however was unable to find the one I'm talking about.
It appears that the arrow pointing to Pluto in the 2nd image is pointing at the wrong place. It should the next one to the right...
@bary1234 I wouldn't take such an aggressive stance, other than that we pretty much agree.
Cheers.
@EntinludeX What is it with peoples obsession with Pluto being a planet? I grew up with Pluto as a planet, but i'm in no way upset that it was "demoted". Science is ever changing, and if they determine Pluto is nothing special in size, than i'm happy science has taught us this, and if we need to adjust the category of Pluto, and fine with that too. It has nothing to do with "elitist" status, it has to do with science.
@Metamorphosis20091 Our galaxy is 100,000 lightyears in diameter. Our solar system is ~25,000 lightyears from the center, and so ~75,000 lightyears inwards from the edge.
We are near the inner rim of the Orion Spiral Arm.
@blackchaos23 and obviously you havent looked uo the dep field images. where they showed galaxies so far away that the size would be compairable to pluto. Also I find it funny they dont use film anymore because with film you do not have image degredation when inlarged. This only happens with digital photography.
OMG PLUTOS MADE OF GOLD!!!!
@sidelingscroll aha,and I guess even if a disruption happens there's almost non probability that a collision course can occur given that it has never happened before.
You could have tried to explain surface temperatures of both Pluto and Mars so we would have a feel for seasonal change. Seasonal change? don't think so. What about axis shift? The guys who modeled this had to make assumptions about the direction the axis is pointing. Bad data in - bad results out?
@DigitizedSelf Ah, and the amount of light emitted by the object being observed naturally ^.^
Are those superimposed because both dots seem to be in both pictures, just varying in intensity.. if you put your finger on them then you see both on both!
So what does the Kuyper Belt look like from and edge view? That is, how thick is it? Pictures always show this 2-dimensional rendering, as if it were a very thin frisbee. Are their objects in the belt that are spherically located in 3 dimensions?
Here's hoping we discover the Charron Relay in 2015.
@rounder421 Dunno, perhaps due to the sheer size of the objects observed (galaxy vs. dwarf planet) or the exposure time possible? (limitations due to the relative motion of near objects to objects far away). Since the solid angle is rather small for far away objects however my bet is on the long time exposure option :-/
Not an astrophysicist; just guessing ;-)
On to the Kuiper Belt !!
tx for uploading awesome video. BTW surprised to no see childish bickering about Pluto getting kicked out of 9 planets.
@GamingLegit "Bow to science all you want,life is too perfect to be explained as probable" - If you understood the notion of perfect then you couldn't and wouldn't use it to describe life.Especially when that life contains so many imperfections. As for your argument as to what is or is not probable it reeks of the same lack of knowledge you used with perfection. We have a data set of one and even in that dataset we are constantly reminded of life in environments previously thought as improbable.
And here we are :)
@Kainlarsen yes he did! "he is not the ugly duckling anymore!"
@dinglenutzz : Thanks :) And go right ahead, dude :)
@puncheex - Was it the same, we have some dark spots and we have some light spots... and that bit, sorry... i spilled some coffee on that bit. hehe.
@slushomatic I believe you're talking about the digital panoramas? Yes, I have seen them. And there you go. And they DO use film photography, the films are used as negatives to make up the panoramas produced by NASA. If you'd like, I can try and find an example for you, but its somewhere on the Internet, haha.
@coopersnoop
its Charon ... in Greek mythology, he ferried the dead to the underworld
@sidelingscroll But what if another star came close enough to disrupt their planetary orbits? Would a collision be possible then?
Wow thats cool
Wasn't there an exoplanet observed not so long ago? Yet this is all we know of Pluto.
@CmdrSloanne Then do you consider Eris the 10th planet, since it is larger than Pluto? How about Ceres, Haumea, or Makemake?
@blackchaos23 Definately. Apparently if you checked out the vid I mentioned in my last commet you just point the Hubble anywhere in the sky for a while & you'll find several or several hundred.
@MercuryRis nope, Pluto's on different height compared to planets.
@lordcheetah Says in this that they have imaged an exoplanet orbiting another star in 2004 using Hubble.
/watch?v=aXKz4nxyPqw&feature=related
So in comparison, Pluto is within spitting distance of hubble, yet the best imagery of Pluto is 10 pixels across. Seems odd to me.
@piranha031091 Well, last time I checked, our closest neighbouring galaxy ain't in the ultra deep field ;)
But then again, I'd guess the resolution of those UDF galaxies(on an individual basis) arn't all that great either. What I'm wondering is more like "Why doesn't our telescopes have better zoom?" ... They probably already have kick ass zoom, but what are the things that sets the limits of zoom that prevents us from getting a high resolution image of pluto?
It's funny that Pluto hasn't even gone through 1/2 of it's orbit in the entire time we've known about it.
@FatLingon Stars make their own light. Planets reflect light. Give someone a bright flashlight have them walk 1 mile away on a cloudy night and have then point the flash light at you. You will see the lights. We see car head lights miles away. Have someone 100 yards away and use the same flash light to light up a golf ball on a string 20 feet away. You're not going to see the golf ball.
The first arrow pointing on a star, not at Pluto, its over the arrowhead.